Re: [ga] ICANN reimburse $75,000 to GAC for GAC secretariat

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

[apologies if this is a duplicate posting]

Joe -- the funding in question "provide[s] reimbursement to the Australian
Government for its actual costs of providing chair and secretariat
services to the GAC" for the period June-November 2002.  I have a good
idea what secretariat services are, but I'm unsure what expenses are
rolled into the phrase "chair . . services."  It *sounds* as if ICANN is
reimbursing the government of Australia for the salary or stipend that
that government is paying Paul Twomey to serve as its "Special
Representative for the Internet and ICANN."  Is that right?  If so, it
seems odd.  If Twomey is unavailable as GAC chair because the Australian
government is no longer willing to pay him unreimbursed, I'm sure that a
GAC representative from some other country would be willing to stand for
election as Chair.

Jon


Jon Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Joe Sims wrote:
> The angst over this is interesting, and it shows how some have forgotten
> the basic idea here.  The reason for ICANN was to create an organization
> that could avoid the bureaucratic problems of treaty organizations.  What
> we have here is a great example of the difference between governmental
> bodies and more flexible bodies.  Up to now, Australia has been the
> volunteer funding source for the GAC Chair and Secretariat, and no GAC
> members had to worry about funding other than to travel to meeting.    Now
> that source has gone away (Australia reasonably concluding it had carried
> more than its fair share of the load), and the GAC representatives have to
> figure out, for the first time, how to fund the Chair and Secretariat.  It
> is hardly surprising that, being governments, this takes some time.  Now,
> someone has to come up with a plan (the GAC has created a committee to do
> this), and then the GAC reps go back to their governments, and get whatever
> approval is necessary.  This also takes some time.  At this stage in the
> ICANN reform process, unfortunately, we don't have any time; we are in the
> middle of the process, and it will end in October.  So if there is going to
> be any GAC activity between now and Shanghai, someone has to pay for it.
> Of course governments have the money, but it takes time to go through their
> processes.  The ability of ICANN to make a quick decision to deal with an
> immediate issue is a great example of the advantages of a private sector
> body over a governmental body -- or in other words, the justification for a
> body like ICANN.
> 
> The difference between the DNSO request and this is that the former was
> intended to be permanent funding, while this is a short-term, one time
> issue.  The general issue of funding for ICANN units is part of the reform
> process, and the Blueprint assumes that the ICANN constituent units will be
> staffed through ICANN funding.  So these are apples and oranges.
> 
> 
> 
> Joe Sims
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html